Hi Ludo, > I prefer that setting PATH to point to the right GRUB, rather than > having to carry the directory name of GRUB in 10 different places.
I much prefer not having a magical non-Guile variable influence which bootloader (!) is installed. Of all things this is the most sensitive part of the installation process - if the bootloader doesn't work you can't even emergency-boot - and it depends on PATH being set correctly at some remote place. I think it's much better not to have spooky action at a distance. > This is the approach taken in several places, such as (gnu system vm): > we set PATH, and then we can happily call functions that in turn expect > commands in $PATH. > > Danny, what led you to this patch? :-) When I read the source I couldn't find which grub-install executable it invokes (and how that even works) and neither could anyone on the list for months (I asked). I think for maintenance it's much better not to use PATH but rather be explicit about which package it is. This is part of the u-boot and grub-efi effort. Of course it's optional to do it - grub, u-boot and grub-efi can work with PATH as well. But should they? However if we aren't explicit about it then the next person will have to search around just like I did. Also it would keep being a Damocles' sword over our heads - if someone modifies PATH (in the Guix source code, by accident) it will just pick up a random grub (maybe Debian's if it's installed on a foreign distro - who knows?).
